Hello everyone:

All I can say is "wow" [or OMG in computer-speak]: I cannot believe the number of e-mails, forum messages, YouTube comments/ messages, etc. I have received regarding my comments on Bugliosi's book. I don't know where exactly to begin, so, typical of my chaotic writing style, I will start from wherever and finish somewhere LOL.

First of all, I have to say this forecefully: I am still your friend (even if you don't care to be mine); no nasty rejoinders, comments, or anything like that from me, trust me. My goal is to surpass Richard Trask as the nicest "lone-nutter" in the research community (he is virtually the only one from the "dark" side CTers still like and respect, to a great extent)! Second, as Gil Jesus will back me up on this one (I e-mailed him the following) and, what's more, it's even in the YouTube message: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that, as much as it pains me to admit (trust me, it does), Oswald beat everyone to the punch. So, in THAT regard, I am hardly a lone nutter, per se. To make an analogy: several groups were planning to rob the First National Bank of Boston, but some lone individual pulled off the caper before they got the chance to enact their nefarious schemes. Third, I (OBVIOUSLY) STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE LED TO THE DEATH OF JFK *AND* THERE INEPT HANDLING OF PRE-11/22/63 THREATS TO JFK AIDED AND ABETTED BOTH OSWALD *AND* THE POTENTIAL (SEPARATE) CONSPIRATORS WHO WERE, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, UNABLE TO SEE THEIR GOAL COME TO FRUITION (BUT LOVED THE FACT THAT OSWALD DID THEIR DIRTY WORK). Fourth, I REALLY AND TRULY READ VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK: EVERY WORD, EVERY SOURCE NOTE, FOOTNOTE...EVERY DETAIL...DID YOU???? Or did you dismiss it out of hand, skim it, or rely on just the nasty CT book reviews for your, ahem, "reading" of his book? Well (answer truthfully)? From 1978 to April 2007, I adamantly and forcefully believed there was a conspiracy in DALLAS and that Oswald, if he acted at all (which I highly doubted), did NOT act alone. I don't know what my friend Jack White was referring to earlier: limited hangout???? From me???? I am on record, many times on the net, in conference appearances, e-mails, etc. as espousing a firm belief that there was a conspiracy in DALLAS...and, in a strong way, I AM STILL ESPOUSING ONE---AGAIN, I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...but Oswald "took the rap" for them by doing the deed by himself. Am I guilty of trying to have it both ways? Guilty as charged---but it's a sincere belief on my part.

I firmly believe THAT is the rub (to quote my cheesy YouTube video: hey, I ain't Speilberg LOL): all the seeming evidence of a conspiracy/ prior threats...yet all the damning evidence that Oswald did it by himself.

Have there been government cover-ups and conspiracies? Obviously, yes; you don't need me to tell you that. After all, in the final analysis, I am just one man with an opinion, that's all: aren't we a country filled with diversity, different cultures, backgrounds, beliefs, political party affiliations (Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.)? Why get so up in arms about myself? Remember: I am on record, several times (Murder In Dealey Plaza, COPA '95, SRU 3/22/07, my book, etc) as giving out a caveat---whether one views the JFK assassination as the act of a lone nut (Oswald) or the act of a deadly conspiracy, my work holds up either way.

I work a day job, I am hardly rich (far from it), and have lost $ on the pursuit of this case/ my research (any very modest $$$ I have made through sale of books, etc. has been greatly countered by the costs of production, time, etc). My access to all of those retired Secret Service agents came through normal, over-the-counter ingenuity: access to a phone and a directory, e-mail, their addresses, etc. that anyone WHO CARED TO DO SO could have obtained relatively easily on their own...I was just fortunate that I tapped into a relatively unexplored area of the case.

It is as simple as this: I read the Warren Report, the HSCA Report, David Belin's books, Jim Moore, and Gerald Posner, and, while I was disturbed, I was not ultimately swayed because they left many holes for us to plug, so to speak. I came to Vince Bugliosi's book EXTREMELY skeptical, to put it mildly...but the book won me over (again, to a point: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that Oswald beat everyone to the punch). I have always been blessed with an OPEN mind. DO I WANT AND WISH FOR OSWALD TO NOT BE THE SOLE SHOOTER AND FOR THERE TO HAVE BEEN A CONSPIRACY IN ***DALLAS***? You bet; absolutely (so, yes: I wish I could still believe that LOL).

Is Bugliosi's book (or ANY book) perfect or error-free? No (i.e. I disagree with Bugliosi on his whole take on JFK's alleged desires to not have the agents on the car). But, again, I read the book, I came, I saw, and I was conquered.

Thanks for your time...let the vitriol begin!!!

Vince Palamara
a.k.a. Scumbag, Judas, the traitor, the mole, the limited-hangout dude, etc.

P.S. To answer any (future) inquiries:

"What made you change your mind, you *&^%&^ Vince????"


Answer: I read Bugliosi's book.

It is what it is.

As you know I don't know you as a person, nor you me. I find your 'explanation' rather hard to swallow after having read your great work on the SS.

You said, "It is as simple as this: I read the Warren Report, the HSCA Report, David Belin's books, Jim Moore, and Gerald Posner, and, while I was disturbed, I was not ultimately swayed because they left many holes for us to plug, so to speak. I came to Vince Bugliosi's book EXTREMELY skeptical, to put it mildly...but the book won me over..." 

Rather than make a statement at this point, my question is: have you read the better books on the 'other side' and if not, why not?

Jan is correct on VB's error about Manson [not to mention IMO, totally wrong about Dallas]. Posner wrote a book about Mengele before his many on Dallas and it was also an apologia for the CIA.....you're in very strange company, young man. Best to you, anyway. Fasten our seatbelt, as I think you're about to hit some turbulance from many who once thought highly of you and your work. [I see no reason to question the work]

You are, of course, entitled to whatever views you had or now have. I hope you will at some point re-evaluate your current position - to my thinking untenable and not supported by the facts on THIS case, nor fitting the HISTORY of the Deep Politics of the USA. Perhaps you focused too much on the SS and didn't see the larger picture and the historic one. Just my thoughts. Thanks for your work on the SS!!! Consider to re-consider. RFK, MLK, MJK, Malcolm-X, John Lennon, All the strange deaths in the JFK Case, murder of LHO in police custody by someone he knew and had been stalking him - as he didn't die according to plan in the movietheatre; cover-up that still continues; covert ops up the yazoo since WW2 to present to support the Oligarchy in their persuit of money, power and often through wars; their execution of JFK in public;......I could go on and on and on...all the way up to 911....

I'd suggest you read some more..... Oswald not only did not IMO shoot anyone on that day, he had NO motive to! The motive of the 'officials' to push their official version is obvious, and all those who can't 'go there' [to where the Government, or agents of it, were complicit in Dallas - and so many other false-flag ops and murders] is just naivete or denial, IMO. There is another possible reason, but I'm not prepared to toss it out, at this point.

Best of luck to you anyway. May you see the light and not be seduced nor blinded by the 'dark side of the force'. The battle for taking back America, stolen on 11/22/63 is engaged, and it will determine if our democracy can be wrestled back. It is not a 'who dunnit' - this is for real, and for the whole ball of wax......

Hey, I'm not that young: 41 going on 42 (it's hereditary: my mom is 70 and looks 55) ;-)

You wrote:

"my question is: have you read the better books on the 'other side' and if not, why not?" Yes, I have read---and own---them all.

"Fasten [y]our seatbelt, as I think you're about to hit some turbulance from many who once thought highly of your work." It has already begun LOL. Still, I have yet to see one researcher divorcing themselves from my work based on my latest opinions (i,.e. Most everyone takes information of value from Trask, The WR, the HSCA Report, etc. regardless of their disagreement on the ultimate conclusions of the works in question)

Vince Palamara

Hi Vince:

A number of people have observed that, in endorsing Bugliosi's (i.e. the Warren Commission's) theory, you made no comment on what it was precisely in Bugliosi's book that influenced your opinion.

Bugliosi produced no new evidence that I can think of, and in fact he makes a complete fool of himself on the NAA/bullet lead issue, so inquiring minds are wondering if you could identify one or two key issues where you felt that Bugliosi has, after 45 years of confusion, clinched the case.

Hi Vince:

I have been puzzled for some time about Lee ordering a 36" Mannlicher-Carcano from Klein's, but that a 40" MC was found on the 6th floor on 22 Nov.

This may suggest some possible problems with Lee being the LN.

What is your take or thoughts on this?

Thanks

Miles

Hi, Ray:

Boy, if it were only that easy LOL. It was not one, two, or 14 things that swayed me...it was the totality (quality and quantity) of Bugliosi's book (text/ source notes...I checked 'em all). If we held every conspiracy book to the same rigid standard some are applying to Bugliosi's book, I wonder how many would hold up.

Since 1995, I have offered my "caveat" that "Oswald or no Oswald", my work holds up...the same exact way people find value in lone-nutter Trask's work, I know they feel the same way about my work. Although more forcefully stated recently, the groundwork for my 'turnaround' was there 13 years ago...and, once again, I am not entirely a lone-nutter (there were conspiracies and threats to JFK...it's just that Oswald beat them to the punch)

Vince

Hi Vince,

I attended a Bugliosi book promotion in San Diego.

I even approached him with the document supplied here. CE 875 Ask him if he remember's.

He looked at it, and wanted to know where I got it from.

I told him on-line at History-Matters.com. That it was a W/C document.

It's a website with the entire electronic version of the Warren Commission publication.

Once I told him it came from a website, he then proceeded to try and belittle me in front of the mostly naive audience. In other words, gave the audience
the impression that this was a document created by someone with zero value.

Asked him if he knew who Robert West was. He didn't. Do you?

Bugliosi might have written a huge book, with a lot of information in it, but how pertinent is it.

Take a look at the document, and when you figure out that West was the LAND SURVEYOR used in the W/C fiasco, might want to ask yourself why it was determined the last shot which struck Kennedy in the head was down near Altgen's, not at 313.

But I'm sure he covered this in his book, right?

chris

Your work never amounted to a hill of beans as far as I am concerned. I've always pegged you as some kind of plant, which you can scoff at and say, "Golly! Me? A plant? Can you explain that?"

I'm not going to explain it. I've got the goods on who killed JFK and why, and I've got the goods on Secret Service/CIA complicity.

I'm not the least bit surprised by your "epiphany" that you've "seen the light."

Hey Vince,
everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

Regardless if we ever heard from each others or not, I would like you to know that,
you did outstanding work IMO in the past, and maybe will do the same in the future also.

Don't let yourself get distracted from doing or believing whatever you see as right for yourself,
and I do not think you should appologize or explain at all why you have reached that
believe or opinion.

What happens to you now, can be seen on every forum or larger circles of researchers.
Voicing the "wrong" opinion makes you the outsider, the hated one, the traitor. the mole
in the eye of the narrow minded ( no pun intented).

Just look around here or on other forums, you will find the same useless fights about
theories,and that is what 99,99% of them are,

Ultimately these things lead to nothing else than personal hatred between people not
knowing each others at all.

This is wrong, and it is damaging.

Rest assured, this unimportant member does not have this cultish reaction written in his
book of life.

You are allowed to believe in whatever you like, according to weaver-
2 experts 3 opinions, as we use to say here in germany.

Doubt it helps, but hey, it is my opinion, and I wish you nothing but sunny days in your life.

Vince,

I will always appreciate the excellent work you did on the Secret Service, but your conversion sounds all too identical to the conversions of former conspiracy believers like Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, Dave Perry, etc.

If you understood the evidence in this case (which I think you obviously did), and were suddenly swayed by Bugliosi's book, you ought to be able to cite a few important examples of evidence that pushed you over the edge. "The totality" of his work isn't specific enough to satisfy anyone; if you are going to brand Oswald guilty in the court of public opinion, you should be able to come up with the same kind of evidence that you'd need to provide in an actual courtroom. As you must know, as far back as 1965, citizen researchers like Sylvia Meagher and Harold Weisberg had cast strong doubts about every piece of the "evidence" against Oswald. Every bit of it is tainted beyond any reasonable doubt, to put it nicely- what did Bugliosi come up with to explain the following:

- Bullet holes (that align with each other perfectly) in JFK's coat and shirt, app. 5-6 inches down on his back. This is the exact location where the back wound was shown in Dr. Boswell's original autopsy face sheet and where it was located by Dr. Burkley, JFK's personal physician, and FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. "Bunched coat" theories don't explain that. How did Bugliosi persuade you that this strongly documented back location was actually high enough to permit a shot from six floors above (and thus on a downward angle) to exit through JFK's neck?

- CE 399, the so-called "magic bullet," was found in nearly pristine condition. Identical ammunition was test fired into a few different substances, including cotton wadding and the wrist of a human cadaver. These tests were done at the behest of the official "investigation" and the results were published in the Warren Commission's Hearings and Exhibits. Have you seen those photos? How does Bugliosi explain the condition of the bullet fired into the wrist bone, which is damaged to a far more substantial degree than CE 399, which shattered a human wrist during its magical journey?

- How did Bugliosi demonstrate that all of the medical personnel in Dallas were wrong, in the exact same way, about describing a huge gaping wound, in the exact same location, on the back of JFK's head?

- Why did the FBI, Secret Service, CIA, Warren Commission, Dallas Police, etc. engage in an obvious cover up, and why was any evidence ever withheld from public view, if this crime was the result of one demented individual, with no rational motive, acting on his own?

I could go on and on, but I'll just ask you one question about your own important research, and how you reconcile it with your improbable position that there were "conspiracies" out there, but Oswald simply "beat them to the punch." To sum it up in a nutshell; if your work still holds up, why do you think the Secret Service would have, for all intents and purposes, stood down on November 22, 1963, unless they were acting at the behest of conspirators? Did Emory Roberts order Henry Rybka to stay at Love Field, and later order the agents to stay on the running board of the follow up car, instead of rushing to JFK's aid, because he was trying to assist a "lone nut" in assassinating his boss? If you actually believe JFK was shot by a lone nut, then you owe Roberts, Bill Greer and all the others an apology for casting aspersions on their demonstrably unusual and suspicious behavior on the day of the assassination. They would have no motive for slowing the car down, or failing to react whatsoever to the sound of gunfire, under your new premise. In that case, all your research was for naught, and does not hold up any longer, contrary to what you say.

If I sound disappointed, I am. So are a lot of others who deeply respected your work.

I will back you up on that Vince. You DID e-mail me that exact position.

But that position requires a belief in a "Coincidence Theory", if you will. It requires in a belief that Oswald killed JFK:


On a day when the SS just happened to remove the motorcycle escorts from the side of the car.


On a day when the SS just happened to remove the general from the front seat of the car.


On a day when the SS just happened to leave the agent who would have been in the front of the running board on the President's side of the car at the airport.


On a day when the SS just happened to stay up all the previous night drinking and carousing with hookers.


On a day when the SS just happened to stay off of the rear bumper of the limo.


On a day when the SS just happened to move the motorcycle escorts to the back of the limo and then to tell the Dallas motorcycle officers at Love Field to "hold your position no matter what happens."


On a day when the SS just happened to order their agents not to move when the shooting started.


On a day when the SS just happened to slow the limo down when the shooting started.


On a day when the SS just happened to "casually look around" when the shooting started.


Too many coincidences here, my friend, for me to buy into that kind of a theory.


And I haven't even started touching on the inconsistencies in the "evidence".


I suppose that's where we differ: what you see as negligence and perhaps even as gross negligence, I see as criminal.


Because I believe that a couple could be "coincidences", but when you put all of them together, there's no way that all of these occurances could have happened without being planned.


Watch Groden's video of the entire motorcade, Vince. Watch how far away from the President's limo the lead police car is. Watch how far back from the follow-up car Lyndon Johnson's convertible is before it turns onto Houston street, near the end of the motorcade.


Kennedy's limo and the followup car are all by themselves. Like they were out on an island and no one around.


Funny how that didn't happen in Tampa.


Funny how that didn't happen in Berlin.


When I first saw that, I KNEW that they were expecting something to happen. They stayed as far away from those two cars as they could for as long as they could.


They led this guy into an ambush and although they didn't pull the trigger, they made it much easier for the party or parties who did.

That, is complicity.

The people who were responsible for the murder of John Kennedy were people who preferred Lyndon Johnson as President and Hoover as head of the FBI. I have no doubt that some of those people were employed by the USSS.


And for saving Hoover's job, Hoover made sure that the real perpetrators would never come to justice. And Johnson's "commission"'s purpose was to rubber-stamp Hoover's investigation, affirming the
conclusion that Hoover had come to before any of the evidence was even examined by the FBI.


Let me thank you for all the help (and prodding) you've given me over the years.

Thank you for your honesty and generosity in using your material.

Few people would write a book and then put it on line for the research community to use for free.

And although I may not agree with your new position, I respect your right to have it and to change it anytime you want to.

And most importantly, I look forward to your continuing friendship.

"It's hard to believe that little Pippsqueak took out the President..." Vince Palamara

It's not enough to just believe that President John F. Kennedy was killed by one sniper, one assassin, for a Lone Nut conversion to be complete, the world class sniper must also be a loner, a nut, a homicidal maniac, a loser who couldn't hold a job, beat his wife and was, in Vince's word, a Pippsqueak.

The President's assassin was not killed by the best assassin world history, but by a little Pippsqueak.

I object to people calling Vince a Judas, turncoat, scumbag, but I also object to the characterization of the successful assassin as a Little Pippsqueak.

Bill Kelly

Thank you, Vince. I'll buy that as an honest answer to my question. Richard Trask, whose work is (almost) as universally respected as your own, is indeed a good analogy.

In PICTURES OF THE PAIN Trask states his conclusion (Oswald did it) at the outset, but it is only after finishing the book that it becomes clear that Trask has not cited ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE IMPLICATING LEE OSWALD IN THE ASSASSINATON. Trask's opinion on Lee Oswald's guilt is not based on his own area of expertise, he is simply relying on the AUTHORITY of others, and you are in the same boat.

Guys like you and Trask are absolutely essential to this inquiry. Your value to the rest of us depends on the scientific impartiality of your outlook in your particular area of expertise, and not on your other opinions.

SURVIVOR"S GUILT holds up whether its author prefers ULTIMATE SACRIFICE over RECLAIMING HISTORY, or vice-versa.

Mr. Palamara:

The phone call that Jack Ruby made to Dallas police dispatcher Billy Grammer approximately nine or ten hours before he killed Oswald demonstrates that Ruby had been ordered or pressured to kill Oswald and was looking for a way out. That fact alone proves there was a conspiracy. But you won't find the Grammer incident noted in any of the 2,500 or so pages VB wrote, even though the incident is reported in two of the books VB claims to have read.

That is just one of the facts peoving a conspiracy that VB simply ignores.

VB is an excellent attorney and rhetorician but, respectfully, he has duped you.

No where in Bugliosi's book does it mention that the bullet defects in JFK's clothing are about 3 inches below the "back of the neck" location required by the SBT.

Here's what Bugliosi wrote in the CD accompanying the book:




The physical evidence doesn't fit the official scenario -- so what?

So what, Vince?

The holes in the clothes match the T3 wound location recorded in the
only back wound medical evidence executed according to proper
autopsy protocol -- Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face
sheet diagram.

So what?

The photographic evidence proves beyond doubt that JFK's jacket
dropped in Dealey Plaza?

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

So what, Vince?

Care to explain how a tailored jacket and a tucked in custom made dress shirt
dropped into an elevated position, Vince?

Vince,

I respect your decision to "convert." But I remain continually surprised that people see Bugliosi's book as the death knell for the CT. I am not as down on the book as others, but I happen to think that, because Bugliosi was more even-handed than he is given credit for, that the book leaves huge loopholes for those who advocate a conspiracy. Let me, for instance, ask you one thing: do you agree with Bugliosi that the Odio incident likely happened the way Sylvia described it?

If your answer is yes, and you are willing to keep an open-mind, I think I can do a fairly good job at convincing you that the Odio incident alone is reason enough to at least be agnostic about a conspiracy (and I will be doing so by staying faithful to what Bugliosi claims/says about the incident.)

Regards,
Stu Wexler

excuse me....where is Bill Miller?.....I mean Millers

In my opinion the Odio incident has nothing to do with the plot to kill JFK. Fonzi and others who say it is proof of the plot are, to put it simply, wrong.

Right on, Bill!

FBI agent James Hosty wrote up a report on Oswald on September 10, 1963, stating that, according to the apartment manager where Oswald had been living from November 1962 to March 3, 1963, “They had considerable difficulty with Mr. Oswald who apparently drank to excess and beat his wife on numerous occasions. They had numerous complaints from the other tenants due to Oswald’s drinking and beating his wife.”

On February 17, 1963, two weeks before the Oswalds moved out of the apartment, Oswald’s wife Marina wrote to the Soviet Embassy stating, “I beg your assistance to help me return to the Homeland in the USSR . . . . I am requesting you to extend to me a possible material aid for the trip . . . . My husband remains here, since he is an American by nationality. I beg you once more not to refuse my request.”

One month later, on March 17, 1963, Marina made an official “Declaration” to the Soviet Ambassador, stating, “I am applying for a visa for entry into the USSR and beg you not to deny my request. My husband remains in the U.S.A.”

The Soviet Embassy replied to Marina on April 18, 1963, stating she would have to “come to Washington in order to visit the Consulate Section of our Embassy,” and if it was “difficult” for her to do that, she would have to write a letter stating why she requested “this permission for entering the USSR for permanent residence.”

The Soviet Embassy sent another letter to Marina on June 4, 1963, telling her once again, “If it is difficult for you to visit us we request you to advise us by letter concerning reasons which made you request this permission for entering the USSR for permanent residence.”

An undated letter from Marina to the Embassy states that her “long silence” on getting back to them was due to “certain family problems” that “stood in the way.” She also says that her “main reason” for wanting to return to the Soviet Union was “homesickness” and that she was expecting her second child in October. And she states, “My husband is often unemployed . . . . We have no money to enable me to come to the Embassy.”

The Soviet Embassy wrote to Marina on August 5, 1963, and told her that her “request for entering the Soviet Union for permanent residence has been forwarded to Moscow for processing. As soon as we receive the answer we will at once advise you.”

And let us not forget the cheap Italian rifle manufactured for the Italian army in 1940 and left over from World War II.

According to a CIA dispatch on December 31, 1963, the rifle was among 100,000 Mannlicher-Carcanos that Adam Consolidated Industries imported into the United States in 1960, two years after “Italian military authorities” decided to “eliminate” them and declare them “obsolete.” Adam Consolidated purchased them “at an average price of $2.20 for serviceable 6.5 rifles” and “$1.10 for unserviceable 6.5 rifles.”

“The first lot of 7,000 rifles that Adam put on the American market had disastrous results. Many of them burst, with frequently fatal results, and many didn’t fire. This forced Adam to withdraw all the rifles from sale and check them before putting them back on the market.”

A March 17, 1964, FBI report states that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was allegedly used to kill President Kennedy, with serial number C 2766, was among “a lot of 5,200” Mannlicher-Carcanos shipped to Adam Consolidated by an Italian machine shop in 1960. It also states that Adam Consolidated said that the rifles in this particular batch were “defective” and refused to pay for them. According to the FBI report, the machine shop was engaged in “legal proceedings” to force Adam Consolidated to pay for the rifles.

William J. Waldman, who was vice president of Klein’s Sporting Goods, the mail order company that sold the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly used in the assassination, testified to the Warren Commission that the rifle cost $19.95 with a scope, plus $1.50 postage and handling, and that without a scope, it would have cost only $12.95. He further testified that a gunsmith who worked for Klein’s attached a scope to the rifle after drilling holes into it.

He was then asked if the gunsmith or “anyone else” had done “boresighting” (which involves using a sight-aligning tool and aligning the crosshairs) “or actual firing with the sight” to check and see how accurately the sight was aligned with the rifle.
Waldman replied, “No; it’s very unlikely in an inexpensive rifle of this sort that he would do anything other than roughly align the scope with the rifle.”

In a letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI reported, “No indication was found that the telescopic sight was remounted. Its position on the rifle, the mounting screws, and the screw holes show no evidence of having been altered.”

Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, who was in charge of test firing the Mannlicher-Carcano, was asked by the Warren Commission if the personnel who ran the test “had any difficulties with sighting the weapon.”

His reply was that “they could not sight the weapon” and had to “adjust the telescopic sight” by having “a machinist in one of our machine shops” add three shims to the telescopic sight.

FBI Special Agent Robert Frazier, with the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., testified to the Warren Commission that adjusting a telescopic sight entails “putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alignment.” He also testified that there were no shims in the rifle when the FBI Laboratory first received it, but there were shims “mounted in the rifle” when the Army Ballistics Lab returned it to them.

After it was determined where the rifle was purchased and how much it cost, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover spoke to President Johnson by phone on November 23, 1963, and said, “It seems almost impossible to think that for $21.00 you could kill the President of the United States.”

Colonel Allison Folsom, who examined Oswald’s Marine Corps records for the Warren Commission, testified that Oswald’s record showed that his marksmanship was “not good” and that his average score over a two-day period was 36 when “people should get a score of between 48 and 50.” The record also showed that Oswald scored at the bottom in classification and aptitude tests when he entered the Marine Corps in 1956, that he was court-martialed twice, and that he had been demoted from private first class to private.

In addition to his testimony, Colonel Folsom sent a letter to the Warren Commission on June 8, 1964, regarding Oswald’s marksmanship. It states that a Marine would qualify as an Expert with a minimum score of 220, would qualify as a Sharpshooter with a minimum score of 210, and would qualify at the lowest ranking of Marksman with a minimum score of 190.

Folsom stated that according to Oswald’s Marine Corps record, on December 21, 1956, two months after Oswald joined the Marines and received his initial Marine Corps training, he received a score of 212, two points above the minimum for sharpshooter, while firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range. On May 6, 1959, four months before his defection to the Soviet Union, his score was 191, one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman.

Folsom also stated, “A low Marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot and a Sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good shot.”

Colonel Folsom’s information shows clearly that after Oswald’s first two months of intensive Marine Corps training, he managed to qualify at the low end of being a “fairly good shot.” But two and a half years later, with a score that was one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman, Oswald was nowhere near a “fairly good shot.” He was most definitely a “rather poor shot,” even though he was still firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range.

Oswald’s ability to pull off even one precision shot would have not only been hampered by his total lack of competence and his poor marksmanship, but it would have been rendered completely impossible by shooting at a moving target with a cheap rifle that had a scope that was in no way aligned with the rifle.

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated, allegedly by a neurotic malcontent who happened to have been working as a stock clerk for five weeks in a building along the President’s motorcade route, a man who allegedly, when he heard where the motorcade route was, decided to bring a decrepit rifle to work three days later and assassinate the President of the United States with no problem whatsoever, because this neurotic malcontent, while not very good at anything else, had supposedly become a phenomenal marksman and could fire two of three shots accurately in five to eight seconds using a cheap bolt-action rifle that could not possibly have been used for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the neurotic malcontent was killed two days later.

Vince Palamara is not stupid. Therefore, he has to be a plant.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that drives people like Vince to "the other side". This exclusionary--my way or the highway--attitude is counter-productive and leads many who refuse to drink the "vast conspiracy" kool-aid to become lone-nutters.

We've got dueling dogmas here. When one side of the issue becomes too over-bearing, people flee to the other side.

Now, the important question is, beyond Vince's blind faith in Bugliosi--the biggest hypocrite in print--what else led to his conversion? Does he really embrace the single-bullet theory?

If so, Vince, can you please explain it to us? I've got several chapters at patspeer.com where I look at this theory, and every depiction of the theory I've studied has been a deliberate deception. Is there one in particular you found convincing?

Simply wrong that three men show up at Odio's door in Dallas, two latins seeking support for an anti-Castro Cuban group and one who appears to be Oswald on a day after leaving New Orleans for Mexico, who is said to be an ex-Marine who shoot the President?

The same ex-Marine accused of killing the President two months later?

Unconnected.

And those who see a connection are simply wrong?

While that's not my strongest proof of the plot, I think Fonzi and Russell and others who have followed this line of inquiry are onto something.

BK

OK. Palamara could simply be an "unwitting" asset.

And if you think that he is going to start explaining himself, then perhaps you should think again.

I would agree with you Tim that the primary purpose of the Odio incident was a sincere effort to get Oswald into Cuba to participate in a get Castro plot. But the reference to killing Kennedy is fraught with too many implications for me to dismiss it as a sign of what was to eventually come. At the very least, short of a genuine identification of Angel and Leopoldo, and a genuine investigation of who they were connected to and what, if anything, they were doing in Nov 63, I know of no rational person who would eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy if they subscribed to the Odio story.

-Stu

A few years ago, as I recall, I tried to get you interested in interviewing Kenneth V.. My reasons for thinking of you were that you were knowledgeable on the medical evidence and good at contacting people and getting them to talk. If you had done that I don't think you would be a lone nutter, because a shot from the front is not consistent with Oswald from the rear, obviously. What do you say you follow up on this lead now, before you switch sides.

Gary,

Who might Kenneth V. be?

-Stu

Frankly, I think this all changes nothing. No one will be moved by VP's sudden 'got official religion' and change their own opinion. Nothing in the evidence supports LHO: as in a position to shoot; able to do the shooting, were he in position; having fired or owned any rifle - and less so that one; the gun found was a Mauser, not a M-C on the 6th floor [Craig paid with his life for that, among other things]; a lone-nut would not have to be assassinated [as originally planned in the theatre, or] by Ruby, who he know and who had mutal confederates; a lone nut would have his interrogation recorded and not treated as he was by the DPD; the white house communication would not have named LHO the assassin and 'no conspiracy' so early, unless there was a conspiracy and they were covering it up!; could NOT have fired the extra shot heard nor have fired the one [more likely two] frontal shots from behind; could not have performed the cover-up posthumously - nor would others have to for him had he been only a lone-nut; had no motive to do so; was in fact a creature of US intelligence and had a double; was set-up to be the patsy; and on and on and on.....
VP is now bedfellows with the likes of Gus Russo, Pozner, Bugliosi (and all the many others over time) who out of blindness to the obvious conspiracy, or working for the very Elites who pulled it off..... and still benefit GREATLY from it.....try to hide this truth from the American People. The American People, generally, have never 'bought it', the best the LN-crowd can do is try to confuse the Public as to the details of who, by offering endless new theories and perpetrators to confusel. It won't work in the end - it is just a stalling tactic by the cover-up crowd, working for those who stood and stand to benefit from the public execution of JFK by elements of the US Govt., Military, Intelligence, and some of their right-wing friends in Mafia, Utra-right, and Anti-Castro crowd.

Logic says no.
Morality screams NO!
America's Future depends on how this all comes out. As Dallas is related to all happening now in America - a nation at the verge of collapse due to moral, democratic and legal decay, denial and theft.

VP you've fallen in stature in a great minds of many. I hope you find your way back to sanity, logic and the side of truth and justice. JFK was not the only thing to die that day. America did.

Actually Stu!

A thorough study of how a good ole S. Mississippi squirrel runs through the forest jumping on many different trees in order to "leave his scent here"; "leave his scent there"; "leave his scent everywhere" would be more in order.

Just as LHO went down and "rubbed" his scent all over McKeown and just as he did in New Orleans with the FPCC and the DRE, as well as with the ACLU and the American Communist Party.

Squirrels do it to confuse and misdirect a predator.

One can only take an educated guess as to exactly who LHO was attempting to confuse and misdirect, as well as lead any predator away from.



Repetition of various actions often brings into the "light" that a common ground cause exists for these actions.

I was on holiday when this discussion began and only caught up with the news yesterday. I do not know Vince and my only contact with him as been via email and has mainly concerned my web page on him. This is understandable as it is ranked number one at Google if you type in “Vince Palamara”.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpalamara.htm

Vince is clearly concerned with his image as an author and rock musician. This is reflected in his Wikipedia biography that is ranked in third place. This has clearly been written by Vince and provides details of the 45 times his research has been used by authors of books on the JFK assassination. For example, this is what he has to say about one recently published book on the assassination:

"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" by Vincent Bugliosi (2007)--- pages XV [page 3, endnotes disc], 146 [source notes disc], 347 [endnotes disc], 403, 404, 408, 691 [endnotes disc], 711 [endnotes disc], 998, 1242-1243, 1276, 1529 (Bibliography), 1592 (index), 1603 (index), & 1604 (index); "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Palamara

Now, I have never seen a biography on Wikipedia that spends so much time on the subject of references in other books. It is clearly very important for him to be recognised in this way. One might even go as far to say that he is obsessed by this subject.

Mike Hogan has pointed out his favourable reviews of other conspiracy books by Larry Hancock, James Douglass and David Talbot on Amazon. However, as Nathaniel Heidenheimer has pointed out: “They all turn into references to his own work”.

I find it impossible to believe that he has been converted from a conspiracy theorist to a lone-nutter just by reading Vincent Bugliosi. How for example, does Bugliosi deal with all the questions raised by Larry Hancock’s book?

However, nor do I believe that Vince is some sort of “limited hangout mole” as claimed by Jack White’s friend. Can you really imagine the CIA paying Vince to changing his mind on the assassination? Especially, as a result of reading Bugliosi’s book. By doing this he has lost all credibility with the JFK research community and will have no influence on anyone who has studied this case in any depth.

To understand this mystery you need to look at other possible motives. According to the Wikipedia biography: “Palamara is currently in the process of having his book entitled Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect The President published”. I wonder how long he has been trying to get this book published? It is indeed not easy getting "conspiracy books" published. Maybe someone has told him that he would have more chance if he abandoned his conspiracy beliefs. Maybe, Bugliosi has promised to help him get the book published if he states publicly that he was converted by that very special book, Reclaiming History.

To Stu:

It is my OPINION that the Odio incident had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

Since there are at least several non-sinister explanations for what happened there, it cannot be considered evidence of a conspiracy. Therefore, those who argue the Odio incident is "prrof of the plot" are wrong.

To Bill:

So do you think the Odio incident was an attempt to link Oswald to anti-Castro Cubans? If so, perhaps the men at Odio's doors were in fact Castro agents pretending to be anti-Castro exiles.

A friend of mine is a very successful in his field, and he likes to regale his friends and clients with stories of his (undoubted) successes. Whenever I chide him for this "obsession," he grins and says "some of us like to blow our own trumpets, and some of us like to bring a brass band."

No one has ever accused Vince of false modesty, but here in America there is a saying that "It ain't braggin' if its true."




This seems to be a variation on the "He's only in it for the money" insinuation that the La Fontaine's leveled against David Lifton. That was unfair to Lifton, and it is equally unfair to Palamara.

Palamara surprised some researchers a few years back when he declared that Dale Myers had convinced him that Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit. I happen to think that the case against Lee Oswald in the Tippit murder is quite flimsy, but I did not decide to dismiss BEST EVIDENCE when David Lifton told me that he too believed the official account of the Tippit murder.



This is only true of people who believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Yes, Bugliosi's footnotes are impressive. In fact, his treatment of the Tippit murder is really impressive, since it is conducted ALMOST ENTIRELY IN THE FOOTNOTES.

Imagine a universe in which someone writes a book that would total 11 (ELEVEN) volumes of normal book size which sets out to solve and explain 3 murders, yet this author thinks the murder of policeman Tippit is not important enough to merit even a chapter of its own.

If you can imagine such a universe, you would surely agree that it should be named ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO"S NEST.



Now Vince, while we have you on the forum, please humor an old pal by answering one last question about SURVIVOR"S GUILT.

AMong the REVELATIONS in SURVIVOR"S GUILT are these 2:



So we have some "seeming culpability" going on here among certain persons employed by the Secret Service. Some things go beyond the grossest negligence into the realm of INTENTIONAL action.

One important area of this seeming culpability was explored in considerable detail by David Lifton in his 1980's bestseller BEST EVIDENCE, so I was surprised
to find that SURVIVOR"S GUILT does not devote AT LEAST a chapter to rebutting Lifton's theory.

Since you now adhere to the Bugliosi Doctrine, I take it that you are now abandoning any inference of INTENTIONAL SSA malfeasance. Before you can hope to convince JFK researchers that you are right, you will AT A MINIMUM have to deal head-on with Lifton's accusations and the evidence he has marshalled in support. Not even the great Harry Livingstone has debunked Lifton's theory, so now it is up to you.



BEST EVIDENCE is one.



Here's my question Vince: Was there an SSA conspiracy to remove the Presidents body from Dallas in order to tamper with the BEST EVIDENCE? l

Can you say "8th Avenue estate?" How about "Jack was no more upset than the average guy ... crying like a baby?" Or my favorite: "We got married, now she can't testify against me?"

I understand perfectly ... and disagree completely.

I, too, have read the books and came away "convinced," not only those cited above, but many with a conspiracy bent as well. (Add to the list of WC, HSCA, Belin, etc., Dale Myers' With Malice as well ... but not VB's as yet.) They are all well-written, convincing monologues, stating facts (tho' seldom all the facts) and drawing seemingly reasonable conclusions that appear to make absolute sense.

They are, however - as my "namesake" once charged - little more than prosecutors' briefs ... and prosecutors successfully convict innocent people virtually every day, even with adversarial proceedings!

They are true and accurate accounts of events as they took place ... as long as nobody argues with them, or brings up contrary facts, or alternative conclusions that make just as much sense.

Despite my own strong opinions on the Tippit murder, for example, when I put down Myers' book, I found myself wondering just what had I been thinking before?!? He said that he'd contacted Charlie Davis who claimed not to know what she'd been thinking when she had testified and implied that Tippit had "lived" two doors away from her. Oh. So much for that, then, I thought; there was nothing to it.

I even bit on the explanation Dale had put forth that, when both Tippit and RC Nelson were ordered into central Oak Cliff that, despite Nelson's having skirted along the eastern edge of Oak Cliff going north on Marsalis, and thence to the south end of the Houston Street viaduct and thence into downtown and Dealey Plaza, that - like Dale had said - Nelson had actually "followed orders" and gone into "central Oak Cliff" because he wasn't far from it! I mean, he'd crossed Jefferson Boulevard, after all, so ...?

Case Closed ... a pun, that, because I came away thinking the same way when I'd put down Posner's rather convincing work. Both of these relatively recent works (as compared with the WCR, HSCA, Belin, etc., anyway ... tho' the later of the two is 10 years old, now) tell their stories in a wholly convincing way, and I fully expect Reclaiming History will do the same.

But convincing stories are not necessarily true facts. Jim Marrs' Crossfire is likewise a very convincing book ... as long as you take in every word that it says, don't question its contents, and promise never to look deeply into it, for it, too, is fully of holes and errors.

Point being: anyone can assemble enough facts and present them in such a light to lead convincingly toward the conclusions the author wishes. Just because it's scripture being quoted doesn't mean it's not the devil doing the quoting!

Anyone realizing that there were multiple assassination scenarios going down in various cities throughout the country at the time and assumes that some "little pipsqueak" with no motive other than impressing his wife - a dubious one at best - and who, despite that, denied having done the deed that was going to make him some sort of hero to someone, somewhere, beat the "pros" to the punch (and presumably was killed in a fit of pique for pre-empting them?) is deluding their own good self.

Even a relatively simple conspiracy would not have allowed the actual shooters to have been abducted and would have ensured that "all the damning evidence" would, in fact, point away from themselves and toward a fall-guy. What does Vince expect: that had the "pros" gotten to JFK before Oswald snookered them, that someone else who actually pulled a trigger would've been caught, possibly with smoking gun still in hand? It would've gone down exactly the way it did, which only goes to show that "all the damning evidence" machts nichts.

Vince really should stop smoking that stuff and go back to his own dope. In the end, though, his opinion likewise machts nichts, as all the wishful thinking, all the vacillation, all the successful conversions, breastbeating and YouTube confessions in the world aren't going to change the facts, but only the opinions of the few people who don't hold very strong ones. Ain't nobody going to be saying "wow, I always thought there was a conspiracy, but if Vince Palamara (gasp!) has been 'converted,' then I guess I must've been wrong all along!"

Right on, Bill!


And let us not forget the cheap Italian rifle manufactured for the Italian army in 1940 and left over from World War II.

According to a CIA dispatch on December 31, 1963, the rifle was among 100,000 Mannlicher-Carcanos that Adam Consolidated Industries imported into the United States in 1960, two years after “Italian military authorities” decided to “eliminate” them and declare them “obsolete.” Adam Consolidated purchased them “at an average price of $2.20 for serviceable 6.5 rifles” and “$1.10 for unserviceable 6.5 rifles.”

“The first lot of 7,000 rifles that Adam put on the American market had disastrous results. Many of them burst, with frequently fatal results, and many didn’t fire. This forced Adam to withdraw all the rifles from sale and check them before putting them back on the market.”

A March 17, 1964, FBI report states that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was allegedly used to kill President Kennedy, with serial number C 2766, was among “a lot of 5,200” Mannlicher-Carcanos shipped to Adam Consolidated by an Italian machine shop in 1960. It also states that Adam Consolidated said that the rifles in this particular batch were “defective” and refused to pay for them. According to the FBI report, the machine shop was engaged in “legal proceedings” to force Adam Consolidated to pay for the rifles.

William J. Waldman, who was vice president of Klein’s Sporting Goods, the mail order company that sold the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly used in the assassination, testified to the Warren Commission that the rifle cost $19.95 with a scope, plus $1.50 postage and handling, and that without a scope, it would have cost only $12.95. He further testified that a gunsmith who worked for Klein’s attached a scope to the rifle after drilling holes into it.

He was then asked if the gunsmith or “anyone else” had done “boresighting” (which involves using a sight-aligning tool and aligning the crosshairs) “or actual firing with the sight” to check and see how accurately the sight was aligned with the rifle.
Waldman replied, “No; it’s very unlikely in an inexpensive rifle of this sort that he would do anything other than roughly align the scope with the rifle.”

In a letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI reported, “No indication was found that the telescopic sight was remounted. Its position on the rifle, the mounting screws, and the screw holes show no evidence of having been altered.”

Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, who was in charge of test firing the Mannlicher-Carcano, was asked by the Warren Commission if the personnel who ran the test “had any difficulties with sighting the weapon.”

His reply was that “they could not sight the weapon” and had to “adjust the telescopic sight” by having “a machinist in one of our machine shops” add three shims to the telescopic sight.

FBI Special Agent Robert Frazier, with the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., testified to the Warren Commission that adjusting a telescopic sight entails “putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alignment.” He also testified that there were no shims in the rifle when the FBI Laboratory first received it, but there were shims “mounted in the rifle” when the Army Ballistics Lab returned it to them.

After it was determined where the rifle was purchased and how much it cost, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover spoke to President Johnson by phone on November 23, 1963, and said, “It seems almost impossible to think that for $21.00 you could kill the President of the United States.”

Colonel Allison Folsom, who examined Oswald’s Marine Corps records for the Warren Commission, testified that Oswald’s record showed that his marksmanship was “not good” and that his average score over a two-day period was 36 when “people should get a score of between 48 and 50.” The record also showed that Oswald scored at the bottom in classification and aptitude tests when he entered the Marine Corps in 1956, that he was court-martialed twice, and that he had been demoted from private first class to private.

In addition to his testimony, Colonel Folsom sent a letter to the Warren Commission on June 8, 1964, regarding Oswald’s marksmanship. It states that a Marine would qualify as an Expert with a minimum score of 220, would qualify as a Sharpshooter with a minimum score of 210, and would qualify at the lowest ranking of Marksman with a minimum score of 190.

Folsom stated that according to Oswald’s Marine Corps record, on December 21, 1956, two months after Oswald joined the Marines and received his initial Marine Corps training, he received a score of 212, two points above the minimum for sharpshooter, while firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range. On May 6, 1959, four months before his defection to the Soviet Union, his score was 191, one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman.

Folsom also stated, “A low Marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot and a Sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good shot.”

Colonel Folsom’s information shows clearly that after Oswald’s first two months of intensive Marine Corps training, he managed to qualify at the low end of being a “fairly good shot.” But two and a half years later, with a score that was one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman, Oswald was nowhere near a “fairly good shot.” He was most definitely a “rather poor shot,” even though he was still firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range.

Oswald’s ability to pull off even one precision shot would have not only been hampered by his total lack of competence and his poor marksmanship, but it would have been rendered completely impossible by shooting at a moving target with a cheap rifle that had a scope that was in no way aligned with the rifle.

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated, allegedly by a neurotic malcontent who happened to have been working as a stock clerk for five weeks in a building along the President’s motorcade route, a man who allegedly, when he heard where the motorcade route was, decided to bring a decrepit rifle to work three days later and assassinate the President of the United States with no problem whatsoever, because this neurotic malcontent, while not very good at anything else, had supposedly become a phenomenal marksman and could fire two of three shots accurately in five to eight seconds using a cheap bolt-action rifle that could not possibly have been used for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the neurotic malcontent was killed two days later.

Vince Palamara is not stupid. Therefore, he has to be a plant.
[/quote]


Tony.

I’ve always believed that LHO’s alleged shooting performance was impossible. Your information regarding the condition of the alleged assassination rifle, which I have read about before is compelling evidence on its own. Add to that the question mark against LHO’s shooting ability and the difficulty of the official view of the assassination, would all in my view raise questions in any fair minded jury on the likelihood of one person pulling it off.
As far as I’m aware, Frazier’s team of expert riflemen could not duplicate LHO’s alleged shooting performance. (2 out of 3 hits in 6 seconds WITH THEIR FIRST ATEMPT) and nobody has duplicated it since then.

Chris Brown.

Vince, busy thread, lots of attention.

Congrats from Wim, the "zany millionaire". (See page 512 of Bugliosi's book)

PS: I DO like Ritchie Blackmore, so we still have something in common

I note the obvious, that so far VP hasn't chosen to respond, explain further, or defend himself. You'd save a whole lot of us a lot of 'to-be-wasted' years if you could convince us as well.... Seriously, if you do choose to respond further, I'd be interested in hearing how and when and [if it applies] through who you became interested in the case and how it developed into your book [which so many of us have and consider a noble work] on the SS. I'd also be interested to know whether you think a lone gunman was responsible for the murder of RFK and MLK and the why there was/is a cover-up of the events of Dallas and all the other major assassinations IF Oswald 'done it'....not only was he a crack shot with a crud rifle [with unadjusted sight], he somehow even posthumously managed a cover-up and suppression of information - tampering with and disappearance of evidence, phony and incomplete 'investigations', etc. what a guy - only in the USA.... Brought to us by the people who now bring us 9/11 and who knows what next.....

If Oswald was the assassin, then which one did it, Harvey or Lee (as per John Armstrong)? What was Oswald's motive? If Oswald wanted this kind of infamy, why did he deny shooting anybody in front of TV cameras? Wouldn't he be gloating?

Kathy Collins

Tim I think the incident was primarily an attempt to get someone who had connections to the Cuban underground (Sylvia, through her father) to help Oswald if he got into Cuba, as part of a plot against Castro.

I also think Leopoldo telegraphed the intentions to kill JFK if that failed; perhaps this an example of the vaunted indiscretion of the Cuban exile community.

I think Castro is a possibility as having ben behind this but I think it is much more likely that these were right-wing exiles who either had to pose as left-wing exiles (JURE) to manipulate Oswald and/or who wanted to implicate a left-wing group in either assassination. This would then, under either assassination scenario, preclude JURE from having a role in a post-Castro government. In the hardline exile community, and there are documents that attest to this, JURE was viewed as Cuban Communism Without Castro.

-Stu

[quote name='Stuart Wexler' date='Jun 5 2008, 01:34 AM' post='146940']
I think Castro is a possibility as having ben behind this but I think it is much more likely that these were right-wing exiles who either had to pose as left-wing exiles (JURE) to manipulate Oswald and/or who wanted to implicate a left-wing group in either assassination. This would then, under either assassination scenario, preclude JURE from having a role in a post-Castro government. In the hardline exile community, and there are documents that attest to this, JURE was viewed as Cuban Communism Without Castro.
-Stu
[quote/]

And as husband to my grandmother,
I am my own grandpa

It sounds funny I know,
But it really is so
'Cause I'M MY OWN GRANDPA

John,

What makes you think that Vince P wasn't a plant to begin with? Maybe he never "changed his mind on the assassination" because he never really was a CT. The guy comes along and claims that he's an "expert" on the USSS, but what motivated him to amass information on the USSS in the first place?

And if he wasn't a CIA plant, then maybe he was Bugliosi's man from the beginning. Bugliosi wanted as much information on "conspiracy theories" as he could get. Maybe Vince P has been helping Bugliosi with that all these years.

And maybe Bugliosi was acting on behalf of the CIA in the first place.

Let's look at the CIA trying to get people to believe the WC report.

A September 22, 1964, CIA Bulletin titled “Propaganda Notes” reports the State Department’s plan to send copies of the soon-to-be-released Warren Commission Report to “American Diplomatic Posts” for “selective presentation to ‘editors, jurists, Government officials, and other opinion leaders.’”

The Bulletin also states that CIA Headquarters is going to send “copies of this Government Printing Office edition” to CIA “field stations,” where “covert assets should explain the tragedy wherever it is genuinely misunderstood and counter all efforts to misconstrue it . . . . Divisions should make bulk purchases for filed use through regular channels.”

By January 1967, a little more than two years after the Propaganda Notes Bulletin, the CIA was so concerned about people not believing the Warren Commission Report that it issued a thirteen-page dispatch on the subject of “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report.”

The dispatch states that the “speculation about the responsibility” for President Kennedy’s assassination had been “stemmed by the Warren Commission report, which appeared at the end of September 1964.”
The dispatch continues, “Various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents . . . . There has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings . . . . Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization.”

Under “Action,” the dispatch instructs CIA officers to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors” and tell these “friendly” contacts that “the charges of the critics are without serious foundation.” The dispatch also instructs the agents to “urge” their contacts to “use their influence” to assist in countering criticism of the Warren Report.

CIA officers were told to use “propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

Dating back to 1964, the CIA consistently wrote up reports anytime there was criticism of the Warren Commission or the Warren Commission Report in the United States or abroad. The CIA detailed who the critics were and what they had to say. They also cast aspersions on the people criticizing the Warren Report and went into detail to refute the points that the critic had made.


And how about the CIA and Garrison's investigation?

David Ferrie got plowed under as soon as Garrison's investigation became public, and an abundance of CIA memorandums and communications reveal top-level CIA officials addressing the Garrison investigation.

An April 26, 1967, CIA memo states there are “loads of possible concern to CIA because of what may be an intent to involve the Agency directly or indirectly in the proceedings.”

A June 1967 CIA memo written after Garrison made his charge about the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans states, “The activity of District Attorney James C. Garrison of New Orleans shows no signs of abating . . . . We shall continue to study all available information about the New Orleans investigation.”

The memo states that in an effort to “keep our reporting from growing too exhaustive,” the CIA would focus on two categories of people, one of which was “those directly involved in the probe and known to have, or to have had, a direct association with CIA.”

A September 7, 1967, CIA memorandum states, “Since the Garrison investigation was first publicized in February 1967, we have kept book on all persons in the case: 139 to date.”

The CIA even established the “Garrison Group,” consisting of some of the senior-most officials in the CIA: the Executive Director, the Deputy Director for Plans, the Deputy Director of Support, the Director of Security, and Raymond Rocca, the Chief of the Counterintelligence Division’s Research and Analysis section.

A CIA memo on the first meeting of the “Garrison Group” on September 20, 1967, states, “Rocca felt that Garrison would, indeed, obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”

The memo also quotes the CIA’s Executive Director as having said, “The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial, and what might be feasible during and after the trial.”

A January 1968 CIA memo states that eight people who were part of Garrison’s investigation “have or had DDP ties,” which would be ties to the CIA’s Directorate of Plans, and “eight more were DCS contacts,” which would be contacts with the CIA’s “Domestic Contact Services,” or more precisely, the CIA’s Domestic Operations Division. Of the eight who were DDP contacts, “three have, or had, some contact with the Domestic Contact Services as well.”

Five months earlier, a CIA memorandum of July 10, 1967, stated one of Garrison’s investigators had gone to the National Archives and obtained “the list of CIA classified documents made available to the Warren Commission.” The CIA officer who wrote the memorandum stated he “visited Dr. Robert Bahmer, Archivist of the United States,” on July 7 and informed him that a New Orleans newspaper had published “the list of CIA classified documents . . . . Dr. Bahmer said that the list never should have been shown to Garrison’s investigator or any other researcher in its present form.”

The CIA officer also wrote, “We became aware of the problem late in May and took steps to correct it,” which would be was immediately after Jim Garrison exposed the CIA’s information that anti-Castro Cubans had killed President Kennedy.
Another memorandum stated there was an “original unexpurgated list of all Warren Commission material held by the National Archives,” and “a new list without CIA titles was prepared by Archives at our request.”

The July 10, 1967, memorandum quotes Dr. Bahmer as saying that even though the original list would “no longer” be available to researchers, “It was like closing the barn door after the horse escaped.”

The CIA sent a dispatch to its stations and bases around the world in July 1968 containing a nineteen-page article that made disparaging remarks about Garrison and his investigation, and the dispatch stated, “You may use the article to brief interested contacts, especially government and other political leaders.” It also stated the article should be used to demonstrate “that there is no hard evidence of any such conspiracy.”



By the 1980s, people still didn't believe the WC report. The CIA needed someone like Bugliosi. Maybe he began his research and writing for RECLAIMING HISTORY because the CIA enlisted him as a contract agent. And if Bugliosi was a contract agent, then Vince P could easily be one too.

Except they're not. There is virtually no evidence that the CIA has undertook or is capable of undertaking 20-year plans to deceive future generations. They work in the here and now. Until VB's book, a book twisting facts to create a fiction, and a product of a fevered mind, came along, VP was a thorn in the side of the U.S. Government, using the words of SS agents to cast aspersions on the official story that the government wasn't involved. Holding that this was all part of some grand scheme or limited hang-out is utter foolishness, IMO.

The guy changed his mind. People do that. Sometimes it's based upon new facts that come to their attention. More often it's based upon their circumstances changing. There's that old expression that you can't trust a young conservative or an old liberal.

It wouldn't surprise me that, as Vince has gotten older, he has become a little more desirous of recognition and respect from mainstream America, and has realized that his work as a CT is a hindrance to his gaining that respect. He's at a point where he wonders if it was all worth it. And then along comes Bugliosi asking Vince if he'll give him a quote for his book. "Sure" thinks Vince P, that way I can make a public divorce from CT-land, and maybe get some attention for my book. Maybe now I can get it published. It could be as simple as that.

I think Tony's take is not far off the mark with the title of his book and interesting comments above - although I don't feel the 'CIA' is the entire problem - only a part of it - and the CIA, for the most part, are not rogue, but work for a certain Secret and Deep Governmental Structure - that has little in common with the public one covered in the news [also controlled by the Secret and Deep Governmental Structure]. That said, I think Pat may be right on VP [my guess], but it could also be more along the lines Tony said and wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. We don't know and likely won't for a long time. We can all speculate, but lets not flog him in case he is only naive or selling-out for fame or publication or some such. It is a disappointment, for sure, but doesn't effect the rest of us. His 'karma' to deal with whatever the verdict turns out to be. VB is a much more public figure and there I think Tony's speculation might bear some thought - it certainly seems to me to be true with Pozner - so no doubt many others, as well.

I appreciate your perspective, Peter.

As far as I'm concerned, VB and VP are non-issues. The things I found out in 1984 would make it very important for certain rogue elements of the CIA to embark on a long-term venture to get people to accept the WCR.

Discounting what the CIA would do is a big mistake. Who would think that they were putting LSD into the food of “unsuspecting subjects between 1953 and 1963”?

Who would think that the CIA was running rampant domestically conducting break-ins and wiretapping and intercepting mail?

Who would think that the CIA had been infiltrated by subversive elements and that those elements assassinated JFK?

Let’s not forget the Regis Blahut incident.

Blahut was a CIA officer who had been detailed to “assist” the HSCA and he broke into a safe at the Committee’s offices. The break-in was reported in the news several months after the HSCA disbanded.

The Washington Post reported: “The safe was reserved for physical evidence of President Kennedy’s assassination, including the autopsy photos, X-rays, and other articles, such as the so-called ‘magic bullet’ that wounded both Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally.”

“Autopsy photos of the headshot that killed Kennedy had been taken out of their cases and were left in disarray inside the three drawer safe . . . . There was no doubt that the files in the safe had been tampered with . . . . ‘It looked as though someone had just run out.’”

Blahut’s fingerprints “were all over the place, on the photos, inside the safe, and on all sorts of different packages.”

“The CIA acknowledged that it has dismissed the individual in question. ‘We’re satisfied it was just a matter of curiosity,’ said CIA spokesman Herbert Hetu.”

If the CIA spokesman were to be believed, what he was really saying was, “Yes, the agent we assigned to assist the HSCA broke into their safe, but that’s only because he was curious. In fact, we fired him. We’re satisfied.”

According to official CIA documents, Blahut was there because the CIA had its own safe in the HSCA offices in which the CIA kept documents relating to the assassination. The HSCA also had a safe, with which the CIA was not supposed to be concerned, and Blahut broke into that safe.

In a document dated May 10, 1979, Blahut is referred to as a “former agency employee,” but that didn’t seem to be the case when the break-in was finally publicized, and Blahut was interviewed five weeks later for a front-page story in the Washington Post on June 18, 1979.

“In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Blahut denied any wrongdoing. He insisted that there was an innocent explanation. He refused, however, to say what that was.”

Blahut said he worked for the CIA’s Office of Security and stated, “There’s other things that are involved that are detrimental to other things,” and he refused to elaborate when asked what he meant by that.

Blahut went on to say, “I signed an oath of secrecy. I cannot discuss it any further . . . . I’ve already defended myself to my employers. As far as I’m concerned, that’s all cleared up.” He also claimed to have passed a CIA lie detector test over the matter.

Blahut had obviously not been fired.

The CIA’s documents state that when CIA Director Stansfield Turner and the CIA’s Deputy Director met with Committee General Counsel Robert Blakey in July 1978, almost a year before the break-in was publicized, the Director “alluded” to Blahut’s lie detector test, and the CIA Director himself claimed that the lie detector test “confirmed the veracity of Blahut’s story.”

It's possible that VB and his book were not CIA orchestrated, and it's possible that VP was not a plant. It's possible that those in the CIA who know the CIA was infiltrated and know that the subversive elements killed JFK have been sitting back thinking, "This book by Bugliosi is great for us! And we couldn't ask for much more than Vince Palamara, the expert on the USSS, being persuaded that Bugliosi is right!"

But I doubt these "possibilities."

I think I've finally got it. You're saying that

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean TWO VINNIES are not out to get you.

I fully accept that in the years following the assassination the CIA did what they could about its involvement with Oswald and related issues. However, I do not believe that they spend too much money, resources, etc. on the case today. I definitely do not see them thinking it is worth bothering turning people like Vince Palamara.

What about the CIA getting rid of DeMohrenschildt in 1977 and Regis Blahut breaking into the HSCA safe in 1978? How long after that did Bugliosi start researching his book?

It would certainly not be a huge agency operation, but certain elements of the CIA could have easily enlisted Bugliosi and Palamara. It certainly would not cost much and would require almost no resources. Besides, it would provide job security for someone if they could convince a superior that it is needed. And maybe Palamara didn't need to be turned; maybe he was a plant all along.

I'm not saying it has to be true. I'm saying that it's a possibility.

I'm inclined here to side more with Tony. I think the CIA's apparent low-level of activity and energy expenditure is only because they think, for now, they have the situtation well under control for the population, in general. [do recall, however, they are refusing on the release of the Joannides documents quite actively!] Should that control perception change, they'd be very busy little beavers again, IMO. Additionally, a source, with connections to know, tells me they maintain a very high level of interest and monitor what is going as they always did and Tony has pointed out - as have others on this forum. It would be interesting to know when VB did get the JFK 'bug' and to follow it up with his work against Bush is an interesting duality or split rational perspective [or psyop]. IMO.

To quote Bugliosi from the Introduction to his book, "My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March of 1986 when I was approached by a British Production Company, London Weekend Television, to prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald....."

This was the infamous "mock" trial in which Gerry Spence was the defense attorney.

It makes me wonder when and why "London Weekend Television" come up with the idea of prosecuting Oswald.

uggghh...could it be they thought it was an interesting project?

The program shown overseas was much longer than the drastically edited version shown in the states. Even so, one of the witnesses making it onto U.S. TV was Eddie Lopez, an HSCA investigator who concluded the CIA had been involved in impersonating Oswald in Mexico. He comes across as honest, but not bedrock. When watching his testimony, however, you can sense that his testimony was not too pleasing to certain people. This may account for this no doubt very costly program's never making it onto video or DVD, and only being shown a few times in the states (and not once after the release oif JFK, as far as I can tell). Every version in circulation that I am aware of was taped off someone's TV.

NOW, if you want to claim the CIA was involved in the overseas distribution of Beyond Conspiracy, we can talk. It seems more than coincidence that this fairly crappy program has been re-edited with replacement Peter Jennings' for international distribution. That's exactly the kind of thing the CIA would be involved in. It doesn't even violate their charter.

BTW, I read that Vince Palamara took his video off of Youtube. Evidently, he came to believe it was embarrassing. Hardly the behavior of a CIA mole.

If Vince Palamara was a plant, he did what he was supposed to do and now he's made his exit from the stage. I would hardly call him a "mole" for the mundane task of amassing information on the USSS and then claiming Bugliosi has shown him the light regarding the assassination.